The U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly to pass legislation reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act on Tuesday, despite the efforts of a group of Republican men who tried to block it.

Florida senator Marco Rubio led a group of 22 male Republicans who voted against the bill, which established a system for helping women in danger from domestic violence. No women or Democrats opposed the bill and it passed 78-22. That's right, the guy that Time magazine hailed this week as the "GOP Savior" voted against helping protect women from violence.

In fact, Rubio was also one of eight Republican senators who last week voted against moving to debate on the revived legislation.

One of the most contentious issues of the bill is that the updated version grants additional protections to immigrants which would encourage undocumented women to report assaults done to them.

Another issue some of the gang of 22 are hiding behind is that they object to the updated VAWA extending protections to LGBT and Native Americans.

The spending and grant provisions of the bill may have had something to do with the no votes, as well.

The Senate bill also prohibits discrimination against LGBT victims in grant programs to help victims, and would let illegal immigrants stay in the country to receive help if they are victims of domestic violence or rape.

VAWA provides grants to victims of domestic violence in order to encourage victims to leave their abusive situations. Some feel they can’t get away from their abusers because they might not have another form of family income, so the grants can provide housing assistance and cellphones for victims. Under this reauthorization bill, these programs would continue for another five years.

It seems that those who voted "no" feel some women are more deserving of help than others.

Afs, this is the same "state level laws" that kept black voters from voting before the feds stepped in, thank you. As a resident of Ala. you should be very aware of that fact. Of course their are many that are quick to forget.

nose, "dumb downed", the tears and bitterness of the Losers in the last election continue to flow, Lol.

Ac-, "stupid character assassination against Rubio" thank goodness you never read anything like that against Obama from cons, Lol.

Guitar, "50% of aborted babies are female". Cons are only concerned with fetuses and could care less about children after birth which is quite a mystery. We read so many tearful notes for the unborn that dry up quickly at birth when a poor child needs govt support. This makes most dems question con sincerity. As a con maybe you can explain the inconsistency.

101, "I was wondering how long it would take dems to start attacking Rubio"? I would say about as quick as it took cons to start doing the same to Obama. Naturally you may not have considered that point.

There was so much garbage in that bill that it watered down the initial intent. It is amazing what happens to a bill once it is introduced and everyone adds their little pork to it. The Democrats added a whole pig to this one so when the Republicans voted against it they can point to the original bill and yet not a single one will talk about all the little "extras" that have been added on.

This whole article that MM posted was an incredibly stupid character assassination of Rubio. It didn't even try to make sense of the objections, it just objected to the Sentors' objections.

Here, now. The article stated: "One of the most contentious issues of the bill is that the updated version grants additional protections to immigrants which would encourage undocumented women to report assaults done to them.Another issue some of the gang of 22 are hiding behind is that they object to the updated VAWA extending protections to LGBT and Native Americans."

--Well, should we be giving money to illegal aliens? Should they be here in the first place? And if the allegations aren't proven, then what stops illegals from "reporting" domestic violence that doesn't exist, then taking their anchor babies to their new FREE government provided accommodations?

And with the LGBT, I think we look upon male/male relationships different than male/female relationships. Can't the man just move out? Does he need a government grant? Really? And is domestic violence an issue in the LGBT community? If I read what sgm and others have to say, these relationships are MORE harmonious than those of heterosexuals, or is this a dirty secret in the LGBT community?? Also, does BIA already have programs in place for native Americans?? If so, I can understand why Rubio and others might not want to spend money for double-coverage. And for non-indians living in and around the reservation, they might not want to be "covered" by BIA or tribal police forces, feeling they might not be getting treated fairly. And I can understand that, as well as the converse.

So, no. I think this article is nothing more than a propaganda and character assassination piece. It's interesting that the propaganda department of the Democrat party chooses to beat down ANY Republican that DARES to speak up on anything, even when the Dems know they're right. Just exactly who is suppose to run from the Rep side, if the Dem propagandists keep beating them down? And how would you Dems feel if the Reps started doing the same thing? What I see here is some on the left laughing about this, when if it were written about Obama, or Clinton, or Panetta, or Geithner or Pelosi, they'd be up in arms and frothing at the mouth with fake outrage.

Rubio is right...these are programs that should not be mandated by the federal government but should be handed down to the state level. What is so hard to understand? You liberals seem to think that the states should not even exist.

I love how people choose one vote on one issue to paint someone as anti-woman or whatever. If we carefully look at every bill that your great sainted one, your messiah, Barrack Obama has voted for or against we can really paint him as a heinous individual.

This can be done with anyone who votes on anything in Washington DC. But if it plays well for your case, go for it.

"did you libs even read what jd posted, what Rubio said about his votes on the bill and its Amendments?"

Yes.

Here's the part I found very strange:

"These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice. Additionally, I have concerns regarding the conferring of criminal jurisdiction to some Indian tribal governments over all persons in Indian country, including non-Indians."

So he thinks federal handling of a national problem is wrong for whites but correct for Indians. The hypocrisy is glaring.

I also noted the Republican talking-point "Washington bureaucrats". It is nothing but a euphemism playing up to the "I hate the government" theme.

That theme is overly simplistic, meant to play to the dumbed-down uninformed crowd that is attracted to the GOP. I prefer logical solutions rather than sound-bytes meant to appeal to the ignorant.

Most legislators agree this bill can do some good things. They don't require proof that it will work. They are ready to try it. Drink some more water, Marco. Maybe it will come to ya.

The rubber stamp re-authorization of this Bill was put forward with some new additions and ZERO repairs.

For example, any immigrant woman married to a US citizen can simply declare "abuse" and jump into the express checkout to a residency status. Sure, probably only used 1000 times but who's counting right?

Additionally, un-documented "visitors to the U.S." who assist police with information are eligible for another express-lane feature called a U-Visa.

Sooooo, why are Democrats FOR fraud loopholes and unintended consequences? Why do they ignore the obvious? Why do they refuse to fix anything?

So they can create a campaign commercial: "Republicans hate women"

who cares about putting forth good legislation, vote Democrat, Republicans hate you (because we told you they do)

Pathetic bunch these Democrats -- this thread is same old partisan games that we are all fed up with.

On the Klobuchar amendment, I voted no because I believe the Cornyn amendment, which I voted for, is better policy. I supported the Cornyn amendment because it addresses rape kit backlogs, tightens mandatory federal sentences for crimes against women and children, imposes a 15-year minimum sentence in crimes where domestic violence leads to death and imposes a 10-year minimum sentence in rape convictions. In addition, it creates a database for investigating sex offenders, including DNA databases to assist law enforcement. And finally, it contains a Sense of Congress provision calling on Backpage.com to take down its adult services section, which has become a facilitator for sex trafficking. On the other hand, the Klobuchar amendment does not contain the sentencing provisions or the subpoena authorities found in the Cornyn Amendment, nor does it have the Backpage.com component.

On the Hutchison amendment, I voted no because of strong concerns, particularly by the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence, about the new requirement that 30 percent of STOP grant funding be targeted to sexual assault would divert funding away from current domestic violence programs without evidence that the increased funding will result in enhanced prosecutions or additional cases reported.

Finally, on the Leahy Substitute, I voted no because it would also divert funding away from domestic violence programs to sexual assault cases, without any evidence that the increased funding will result in enhanced prosecutions or additional cases reported. Furthermore, it would give the Justice Department greater power in determining how funds are used at the state level, taking decision-making out of the hands of the state-based coalitions on the ground who know best about how to serve their communities. Lastly, this legislation fails to address the duplication and overlap within VAWA programs and with non-VAWA programs operated by both the Department of Justice and Department of Health and Human Services.

I support reauthorizing the current Violence Against Women Act as written and hope we can vote for it once it comes out of the House-Senate conference committee.

In a statement released Tuesday, Rubio explained that though he continues to support programs "to combat domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking," he did not support all elements of the expanded bill.

Unfortunately, I could not support the final, entire legislation that contains new provisions that could have potentially adverse consequences. Specifically, this bill would mandate the diversion of a portion of funding from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs, although there’s no evidence to suggest this shift will result in a greater number of convictions. These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice. Additionally, I have concerns regarding the conferring of criminal jurisdiction to some Indian tribal governments over all persons in Indian country, including non-Indians.